Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The interlocutory appeal before the court arose from a health-care liability claim filed by Lizalde Marichalar against Luis Richard Garcia, M.D. Pursuant to �51.014(a)(9) of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, Garcia appealed the trial court’s order denying his motion to dismiss Marichalar’s claims with prejudice. Because the trial court dissolved the challenged order, Marichalar filed a motion to dismiss the interlocutory appeal as moot. In response, Garcia argued that, under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 29.5, the trial court’s dissolution of its prior order interfered with or impaired the effectiveness of the relief sought by him on appeal. As such, Garcia moved that, pursuant to Rule 29.6, the court review the trial court’s challenged order. HOLDING:Because the trial court had no authority to grant an extension to Marichalar, its dissolution of its May 26, 2005, order interfered with or impaired Garcia’s right in his interlocutory appeal to seek a dismissal with prejudice. The court denies Marichalar’s motion to dismiss and grant Garcia’s motion under rule 29.6. Because the trial court’s Sept. 28, 2005, order interfered with or impaired with the effectiveness of the appellate relief sought, it is vacated. In support of her argument, Marichalar points to Rule 29.5′s language giving the trial court authority to dissolve the order being appealed from. However, the court notes that Rule 29.5 also states, “But the trial court must not make an order that . . . interferes with or impairs the . . . effectiveness of any relief sought or that may be granted on appeal.” Thus, the court considers whether the trial court’s order dissolving its former order interfered with or impaired the appellate relief sought by Garcia. But the court notes that Garcia is not seeking a determination that the report was deficient. There was no expert report. Instead, he is seeking a dismissal with prejudice. Under �74.351(b), when no expert report has been timely served, the court states that a trial court must dismiss the claim with prejudice. Here, instead of allowing this interlocutory appeal to proceed, the trial court dissolved its prior order and granted an extension to Marichalar, which it had no authority to do. In essence, the trial court gave her time to cure a nonexistent report. And, because Garcia may not bring an interlocutory appeal from the granting of an extension by dissolving its prior order and granting an extension, the trial court has interfered or impaired the relief sought by Garcia: a dismissal with prejudice. Because the court agrees that the trial court’s dissolution of the challenged order interferes with or impairs the effectiveness of the appellate relief sought by Garcia, the court denies Marichalar’s motion to dismiss and grant Garcia’s motion. OPINION:Angelini, J.; Karen Angelini, Sandee Bryan Marion, and Phylis J. Speedlin, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.